tv All In With Chris Hayes MSNBC April 1, 2015 12:00am-1:01am PDT
>> what a difference a day makes. nascar joins the chorus against indiana's religious freedom bill and the republican governor begins backing down. >> it's a clarification but it's also a fix. >> but is that course correction too late for the 2016 hopefuls that already jumped into the fray. >> i think once the facts are established people aren't going to see this as discriminatory at all. >> then obama's big deal delayed on iran. elizabeth warren on hilary clinton. >> i think we need to give her a chance to decide if she's going to run. >> new conservative conspiracy theories about harry reid and new controversy around the new host of the daily show. all in starts right now. >> good evening. i'm in for chris hayes. he has seen the light or the pressure after spending the weekend claiming that indiana's
new religious freedom law didn't possibly discriminate. then pence changed his tune today. >> it's been a tough week here. i don't believe for a minute that it was the intention to create a license to discriminate or right to deny services to gays, lesbians or anyone else in this state and it certainly wasn't my intent but i can appreciate that that's become the perception. >> republican legislators are trying to amend the new law and in his press conference governor pence said he'll help them move a bill. >> to move legislation this week makes it clear this law does not give businesses the right to deny services for anyone. let me say when i believe this is a clarification but it's also a fix. >> a fix implies something is broken in the law so that's a big concession coming from its
proponents but a minor fix may not be enough and a sign of how broad the support for principles of inclusion and nondiscrimination have been in this country. the groups ranged from left to right to nonprofit to corporate and including all american favorites that don't do politics like basketball and car racing organizations. take a look at this. nascar jumped right into this debate saying they're disappointed by the recent legislation passed in indiana and they say we will not embrace nor participate in exclusion or intolerance. that's comes after nine major ceos called on pence to pass a new bill saying no state laws are used for that. national companies are also weighing in. look at this statement from marriott's ceo. >> the legislation in indiana and there's some bills being considered in other states is not just pure idiocy from a business perspective and it is that.
the notion that you can tell businesses somehow that they are free to discriminate against people based on who they are is madness. >> and here is the republican mayor of indianapolis. >> call upon governor pence in the indiana legislature to fix this law. either repeal it or pass a law that protects all that live, work and visit indiana. and do so immediately. >> so you're basically seeing there a bipartisan on slot in indiana. but the shift here is also bigger than that state. conservative politicians trying to target evangelicals are realizing that the world around their targets is moving swiftly. it's hard to find a way to say condemn gay marriage without antagonizing the broad spectrum of americans committed to inclusion and nondiscrimination and some presidential candidates are getting caught in this political undertoe defending the
law even as we're reporting even as it's state sponsors are retreating. take a look at jeb bush saying that governor pence did the right thing. >> i think if you, if they actually got briefed on the law that they wouldn't be blasting this law. i think governor pence has done the right thing. florida has a law like this. bill clinton signed a law like this at the federal level. >> that's the problem. you just need to get briefed. meanwhile marco rubio tried to have it both ways. >> i don't think americans want to discriminate against anyone. i think the fundamental question in some of these laws is should someone be discriminated against because of their religious views. no one is saying it should be legal to deny someone service at a restaurant or hotel because of sexual orientation. the flip side is should a photographer be punished for refusing to do a wedding that their faith teaches them is not one that is valid in the eyes of god. >> and then there's governor scott walker, a well-known
conservative in wisconsin and he's saying he doesn't anticipate his state adopting this kind of law. none of this means, let's be clear, that these laws are dead on arrival in america today. in fact just this afternoon we can report to you arkansas's legislature went ahead and passed a similar bill but in a sign of what we believe is this rapidly shifting politics, the largest employer in the state and nation, one you may have heard of, a well-known friend ott the gop is already pushing back. walmart's ceo asking the governor to veto the bill and so far the governor looking less enthusiastic than governor pence although governor pence doesn't look that enthusiastic anymore either. now to discuss all the fast moving politics we have richard socarides and knowledgeable on many of these issues. what do you make of this shift? that you basically have even the people that thought they could get away with this feeling they need to move if for mitt cal reasons if not for substance?
>> the chain of events you just described is ri remarkable chain of events that even five years ago would never have been possible and it shows how dramatically the center of gravity around this issue has changed and a year ago we had a little bit of a preview of this when jan brewer in arizona vetoed a very similar bill. she saw what was coming and governor brewer never thought to be the smartest tack in the box saw this coming. so you could see it coming but it's been a remarkable couple of weeks around this. >> what do you think of what senator rubio tried to do in saying the real issue is that religious people face their own kind of reverse discrimination here? >> i don't think it will be successful. what we as democrats believe is that religious freedom has been an important american value and will continue to be an important american value but we have always been able to realize
religious liberty is important while at the same time putting the value of equality front and center. these two values coexisted in american law and governance for a long time. hilary clinton was right out of the box on this. the day the law was passed she came out against it and it will shape up as an interesting and important issue in the 2016 champagne. >> they had an earlier battle over marriage equality and the courts prevented that and they're looking at a case for marriage equality. is there a desperation here for folks that won't to give something on the right but don't have a lot of policies to play with. what i think for people that aren't obsessed with politics is a weird side issue.
>> everybody expects in june they'll rule that every state, all 50 states have to allow same sex marriage. so indiana, this is where the right has wanted to do battle around this issue of so-called religious freedom and totally backfired on them but you can't discriminate against any kind of customer and states trying to promote economic development understand that you can't say business in this state is closed to any one individual group. >> doesn't there seem to be a fixation on if people believe that a certain kind of sex or love is a sin and some people have that religious belief, isn't there a fixation on this? because you don't hear about people quizzing their potential wedding customers about well did you have premarital sex before this wedding? because that's going to come into whether i as a christian or
whatever can do your wedding photos. >> it's a strange preoccupation, indeed. in fact, obviously same sex marriage only applies to civil marriage. there's never a church compelled in this country to perform a gay wedding that doesn't want to. obviously some denominations will let that happen. this is a law that will permit private companies and corporations that don't really have personalities. they're not people. this law was much broader than any of the other laws ever passed before but most importantly what happened here was context. governor pence's problem is he is lying through his teeth when he says it was never the intention to discriminate that's exactly what this is to do. it was intended to be a gift to conservatives that wanted to take a stand against gay marriage. when he signed the bill he had
all the antigay lobbyiests standing around him. when the governor comes out and says this was never the intention, he is just out and out lying and that's why he has no cover. that's why it's so difficult. >> they went from this is something we're proud of to no one understands what this does. thank you for your time tonight. we have the indiana house minority leader. what are you guys going to do next. >> i tell you what, absolutely if first thing that has to happen, unambiguously is this statute has to be repealed. that's the first thing that has to transpire. that'sed a mitting the state made a terrible mistake and going to the confessional booth in front of the rest of the nation. >> let me stop you there. so you say repeal.
that means what governor pence offered today as a fix for you right now is not enough. >> absolutely it's not enough. the legislature has to take it out of governor pence's hands and admit the error that was made first and then take the law right off the books. the world has to understand that we're welcoming intolerant and open to everybody and that's to ensure equal protections. >> what have you heard from your colleagues that did support this recently? >> there's a lot of buyers remorse. many of them feel misled. they think they didn't fully understand the law as it was being passed. but we know who did understand it. it was the antimarriage equality advocates who as soon as the ink was dry on the new law were out
there bragging about all the pen fits it was going to have to certain groups. >> you mention other laws, this is a state that does not have strong protections generally like a state level employment protection act. so you can still be fired legally for your identity so to speak. >> that's correct, yes. >> do you think there's an opening to actually move farther? because some of what governor pence said if you take him at his word makes it sound like he would support those protections now even though they're not on the books yet in indiana. >> i'll not sure he has gotten there yet. he's in a lot of denial about the situation that he's put indiana in. it started out as a civil rights debate and very heated one but now it's blown into a flat out business problem for indiana. we have businesses and investors threatening to pull out because of perceived intolerance and the people of the state will have to
make it clear that they're better than a few of their government leaders. they're doing that right now. that's a good start. we're going to have to put some of these civil rights protections on the books. one because it's the right thing to do and we should have done it all along but also because we have to show the business community that we're serious about being open to everybody. >> thank you for joining us tonight. >> thank you. >> elizabeth warren made new comments about hilary clinton today talking about why we should give her a chance. she also addressed the democrats that keep calling on her to run again no matter what. we'll show you her message to the anybody but clinton crowd.
something a little different, he reportedly wants clinton to appear for a private interview because then the committee would get a transcribed interview to best protect secretary clinton's privacy. the security of the information and the public's interest in ensuring they have all the information needed to accomplish the task set before it. now clinton prefers to offer testimony in a public setting at a hearing open to the american public. so here we have a debate over a private or public discussion and the on going debate over transparency and clinton e-mails and unfortunately it's a debate that probably isn't ending any time soon. re romantic than a spontaneous moment. so why pause to take a pill? and why stop what you're doing to find a bathroom? with cialis for daily use, you don't have to plan around either. it's the only daily tablet approved to treat erectile dysfunction so you can be ready anytime the moment is right. plus cialis treats the frustrating urinary symptoms
of bph, like needing to go frequently, day or night. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision or any symptoms of an allergic reaction stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. why pause the moment? ask your doctor about cialis for daily use. for a free 30-tablet trial go to cialis.com
it is 8:17 p.m. on the east coast and we're more than two hours past the deadline for nuclear talks with iran and with no deal here. negotiators have been working through the night at their hotel in switzerland. this is a last ditch effort to nail down the political agreement after the u.s. agreed to extend past this official midnight deadline. the state department said in a statement that we have made enough progress in the last days to merit staying until wednesday. there are several difficult issues still remaining. with a break through now within reach the decision to keep going is already being characterized as a failure. tom cotton, author of the senate republican's unusual or controversial letter addressed to iran's leader is saying given the dangerous concessions by the obama administration over the past week, one can only imagine what further concessions it will make in the next 24 hours to resolve these issues. the best solution is to walk away from the nuclear they
negotiations now and return to a place of strength. that's what's to come if they manage to bring back a deal here in washington. no matter what emerges the obama administration will face intense skepticism from lawmakers and not just from republicans. many of tom cotton's republican colleagues have shown already where they stand. for example speaking on the floor last week, senator john mccain said a nuclear deal could force israel to take matters into their own hands. >> they'll need to chart their own path of resistance. on the nuclear deal they may have to go rogue. let's hope their warnings have not been mere bluffs. >> mitch mcconnell traveling to israel over the weekend where in a video released by the israeli government he ensured the prime minister there's still ways to stop this deal. >> the group who are here share your concerns about this
potential agreement and there are options that the united states has in the wake of an agreement and if there is no agreement. >> meanwhile, john boehner scheduled to meet with netanyahu tomorrow in jerusalem and now we are joined by democratic senator chris murphy of connecticut. a member of the senate foreign relations committee. before we get to the politics give me your take on this overnight homework extension they have given themselves for the obama administration is this a sign that something is close or a last ditch effort before a total break down? >> it's an arbitrary deadline so let's understand if there's progress made there's no reason you wouldn't extend the talks at least a day and of course this is a deadline to get a frame work. the talks have actually been extended through june and so all of the obama administration has outlined a deal by the end of march but we should give them
more time because the stakes are he nor mouse. you have republicans cheer leading for war. the consequence of the united states walking away from these negotiations and maybe we'll ultimately have to do that is really a military option. we won't be able to put the sanctions back together as effectively as we had them in the first place. >> what do you mean by cheer leading for war specifically? are you referring to senator mcconnell and mccain there that their opposition to this deal means they want the u.s. to engage militarily against iran? >> senator cotton made it clear he thinks the best option ultimately is for the united states to use military intervention in order to disabuse iran of any nuclear weapon's program. i don't think that all 47 of them believe that's the case but there's an element of the republican party that views american international power solely through a military lenses. just doesn't see any use for negotiations. ultimately there's part of these republicans who are cheerleading for war.
>> since you bring it up, let's zero in on that. what senator mccain and others would say publicly and in more detail privately is israel has been able to go in before and tom facilities when they need to so the u.s. has this option that doesn't involve a u.s. attack. what do you say to that? >> israel is going to deserve it's right to act unilaterally and they have in the past. they have a limited capacity to take out the nuclear program for a period that will extend beyond a year or two and it's in all of our interests to get to a negotiated settlement that gives us more cover than you would get by a military strike. people are upset that the proposed deal is only ten years. that's double the amount of time you would get for a military strike. israel is going to do what they need to do. we should get a shot. it will give us much more
protection than any multilateral or unilateral strike. >> from your vantage point on the foreign relations committee and your advocacy for a solution here what is the administration doing to try to bring people along in the congress. as you know, wall street journal has story that seemed to rely on obama administration sources saying that they will work with and collaborate with member of congress to give them a stake in this. what is your view and your knowledge of that? >> what the administration is saying they understand that congress has the ability to weigh in on a deal once it is signed and i don't think there's ally any question that republicans in the senate and house are going to structure a approval or disapproval vote once it's reached. because you already have that power why weigh in and pass legislation now while we're sitting at the negotiating table and i think that they're going to ultimately be persuasive on most democrats at least with that argument.
we don't need to pass a bill telling us that we have the power to approve or disapprove a deal once it's signed. we should just have the good sense and the maturity to wait and let these negotiations play out so we can look at an agreement and decide whether we want to move forward on it. >> why do you think some republicans are so eager to engage on this while meanwhile we're deep into several months bombing of isis targets and the congress hasn't found a way to have the vote, the administration asked for. they're on the war authority which is obviously a hot conflict. >> one they're motivated by an effort to embarrass the president so this negotiation could result in what will be a diplomatic victory for president obama. they don't want that to happen but second this is all about the republicans viewing american power in the world simply through a military platform. they have a problem with diplomacy.
that's where the stakes are here. this isn't about the nuclear program but standing up for the idea that talking to other countries, even our enemies can further national security interests. >> that's a interesting and disappointing contrast you draw there. thank you for your time. >> thanks a lot. >> harry reid says he injured himself in an accident. some conservatives don't believe him. they have a theory involving gangsters and vegas rumors and that story is ahead.
where do you want to go here? >> who cares. let's try 24. >> who cares, let's try 24. 26, elizabeth warren. >> elizabeth warren. she says she is not running. she is definitely not running. she says she is really definitely certainly not running. so is she running? we say keep asking. we say massachusetts senator elizabeth warren. >> this is the problem. unlike jim webb and bernie sanders do you think she is going to run. >> no. >> you have given me the one member of the united states
senate that honestly doesn't want to be president. >> he may have been less than thrilled with his final pick in the all in 2016 fantasy candidate draft. that was a few months ago and judging by massachusetts senator elizabeth warren's latest interview with savannah guthrie it doesn't look like she changed her mind. >> you didn't think you would get away with this interview without me asking you point blank are you going to run for president? >> no, i'm not running and i'm not going to run. >> let me make sure that we underscore this and bold it and put it in all caps because i have to tell you i have read every single interview you have done in the last year where people ask you will you run for president and it had seemed that you were hedging a little bit in the past. i don't hear that hedging now. are you unequivocally and categorically saying i'm not running for president in 2016. >> i'm not running. >> possibly i'm beating a dead horse here but did you ever even consider or entertain the possibility of running for president. >> no.
>> yet more than any other senator including many that do seem to want to run, that question has followed senator warren over the past months. >> are you going to run for president? >> i'm not running for president. >> there's nothing that can change your mind. >> david, like i said. i'm not running for president. >> i'm not running for president. >> so there's no way you're going to run in 2016. >> i'm not running for president. you can ask it lot of different ways. >> why don't you want to run for president. >> i'm not running for president. >> i am not running for president. no means no. >> just a minor tiny question here. are you going to run for president. >> i am not running for president. affirmative. throwing it out there, no. >> i am not running for president. >> but you have also said about 19 times that you're not running for president. so i'm going to give you a chance to say for the 20th time.
>> i am not running for president. >> if hilary didn't run you might give it a shot. >> i am not running for president. >> that's the thing about reporters. we are all hard of hearing. now the big question is a world without a candidate warren still a good place for her brand of economic poplarism. you can see on the screen senator warren might answer questions or others by rachel maddow. she is the special guest host tonight and mark your calendars, a special encore presentation of all in 2016 fantasy candidate draft. it's fun to see and watch. all kinds of pop up updates. you don't want to miss it or the rest of the show because we will be right back.
by challenging floyd mayweather. i didn't go bull riding. i wasn't riding a motorcycle. i was exercising in my new home. >> exercising reed explained and he said quote with those large rubber bands and one of them broke. spun me around and i crashed into these cabinets. he still hasn't fully healed. he was in the news on friday when he announced he won't seek re-election but tonight he is drawing a whole different kind of attention. an internet storm is brewing over the outlandish idea that this entire thing is actually a cover up. here's limbaugh describing it. >> i don't believe for a minute that whatever happened to harry reed had anything to do with an exercise machine unless somebody repeatedly threw him into it. harry reeds looks like and is acting like and now with this announcement behaving like somebody that may have been beaten up.
>> who would beat up reid and get him to lie about it? conservative blogger has a theory saying reid had promised to obtain some benefit for a group of mobsters. he met with them on new year's day and broke the bad news that he hasn't been able to deliver what he promised. when the mobster's complained reid made a comment they considered disrespectful and one of them beat him up. end quote. that's a big charge. what is his source? a friend of his that heard rumors when he was in vegas a week or two ago. because you know about vegas rumors. other than that he doesn't have any evidence to support this theory but he says it's more credible than the exercise band claim and now he's calling for an investigation he got. today news which many republican officials sight as a news source dove into the story.
they posted the model floor plan for his house and break down of the dimensions of the bathroom where the accident took place or supposedly took place. this is a story about harry reid's injuries. it is about how some conservatives push baseless conspiracies even when their target has a future. they drew more intention and they talked to him about it and reid's chief spokesman has a quote here. the main problem with the mobster theory is it overlooks the critical role played by the yeti. a conspiracy reference in it's own right. joining me to answer these pressing questions was harry reid beaten up by mobster, what is going on here? >> well i think you said it, what might have happened to harry reid or what might have
happened in harry reid's bathroom stays in harry reid's bathroom. it's how the unhinged conservatives and reid's enemies become about him that they're willing to concoct almost anything. ask yourself this question. why would anyone say they had an accident in their bathroom solving an exercise band and that's how they got hurt. how embarrassing is that story. wouldn't you want to say you fended off mobsters or intruders in your home. you used the word outlandish. i think you're being generous. >> that's what i try to do. we start out generous and then debunk. you have spoken to the idea that the claim or accusation of the cover story is hard to believe and then there's the facts we do know. in his position senator reid has a security detail that travels with him and according to independent accounts as well as from the senator's office they were with him at the time and also drove him to the hospital.
how does that figure in? >> yeah, well, that's another crazy part of this of course. he has that security detail all the time with him. the story itself is not that out landish. he's a fitness nut. he just moved into this new home that's essentially unfurnished. he made what it seems is a foolish decision to set up the exercise band in the bathroom and it snapped on him and hit him and injured him pretty badly. he's 75 years old. it's not surprising he was badly injured when something like that hit him but this is not a story about what might have happened to harry reid when he was exercising in his bathroom. now it sounds like a game of clue. it's a story about how people feel about harry reid. i have written tons of stories about him for the newspapers
that i work for. look at the comment stream every time i write about him. people, i'll use the word again, are unhinged in their hatred for harry reid and they're willingness to believe the craziest stuff about him. >> yeah and then it also goes to i guess some sort of discomfort with other parts of his history because as nevada gaming commissioner he famously stood up to the mob. he even when there was an attempt of a bribery on him he worked with the fbi on the sting so i wonder if in a different context with we've seen the birther charge go around obama for people that have that issue with the president but i wonder here is there something about the fact this they don't like the idea that he got famous and his political career was pushed by standing up to the mob back in the day? >> there's a lot of things people don't like about harry reid but he brings that on himself.
calling people losers and liars. he has done -- he just went and did an interview and said he is basically unrepentant about lying about mitt romney's taxes. >> we have that for people that haven't seen it. john, i want to play it. let me play first the original charge from the 2012 campaign. >> the senate majority leader says a source tells him mitt romney hasn't paid any taxes in ten years. >> the word is out that he hasn't paid any taxes for ten years. let him prove that he has paid taxes because he hasn't. >> and here's from today as you mentioned. >> so no regrets about mitt romney about the coke brothers? some people -- >> no, they can call it whatever they want. romney didn't win, did he? >> what did you make of that there as a final thought? >> i have to tell you, it
doesn't surprise me at all that he would be that way. i thought it was incredibly offensive. he had no evidence that romney hadn't paid his taxes. he said it. i believe the white house told him to stop saying it but he didn't care and that's the way he is which is why some people feel so strongly about harry reid and the tactics he uses that they're willing to use those tactics and even worse to try to smear him. >> all right. a story with a lot of turns. thank you so much. one day after getting a new gig hosting the daily show a quote hand full of jokes coming back to haunt trevor noah. that story is next. oh, i love game night. ooh, it's a house and a car! so far, you're horrible
at this, flo. yeah, no talent for drawing, flo. house! car! oh, raise the roof! no one? remember when we used to raise the roof, diane? oh, quiet, richard i'm trying to make sense of flo's terrible drawing. i'll draw the pants off that thing. oh, oh, hats on hamburgers! dancing! drive-in movie theater! home and auto. lamp! squares. stupid, dumb. lines. [ alarm rings ] no! home and auto bundle from progressive. saves you money. yay, game night, so much fun. >> now he and his family and supporters were up in carson legislature is meeting.
and federal constitutions with this bill. they didn't -- they got a double -- they got a double whammy and violated the state and federal constitutions with this bill. they don't care. they're talking about freedom and we the people. it's like deja vu. he has enablers here having a hearing. it's still going on right now which is the big demonstration but yes he's back.
the conference call. the ultimate arena for business. hour after hour of diving deep, touching base, and putting ducks in rows. the only problem with conference calls: eventually they have to end. unless you have the comcast business voiceedge mobile app. it lets you switch seamlessly from your desk phone to your mobile with no interruptions. i've never felt so alive. get the future of phone and the phones are free. comcast business. built for business.
i've never seen more focus put on sports anywhere else in the world. americans love their sports back to front. you guys know everything. every step. he has four out of five and if you look at that statistic alone he should be getting four and then it's just -- it's just crazy. you know everything. and then you switch it over to like your business shows and your economy and you're like what's happening in the economy this year, bob? well, nobody knows, i mean. nobody knows. yeah. >> less than 36 hours after south african comedian trevor noah was named as john stewart's successor of the daily show he is defending himself of his old jokes. it's about jokes he told on twitter several years ago. one said oh yeah the weekend. people are going to get drunk and think that i'm sexy.
fat chicks everywhere as if they were saying that. another from 2009 almost bumped a jewish kid crossing the road. he didn't look before crossing but i still would have felt so bad in my german car. end quote. since yesterday's announcement those tweets have been covered by new news outlets noting they're criticized for tweets more than a year ago. comedy central released a new state. he pushes boundaries. he is provocative and spares no one, himself included. to judge him or his comedy based on a handful of jokes is unfair. trevor is a talented comedian with a bright future at comedy central. to reduce my views to a handful of jokes that didn't land is not a true reflection of my character nor my evolution as a comedian. is all of that enough to get the controversy? should this be a controversy?
but we will give you what we are allowed to share. >> let's hear it for shaq, all right? thanks for being here and taking a break from throwing barrels at super bare owe. >> i don't like your music, man. i'll not a big fan of it. i hate your music more than bill cosby hates my comedy. >> i've always encouraged people to stay classy and what's more classy than hanging out with floyd mayweather. i love to see biebs spending time with oscar pistorius? of course i would but that day will come. >> now is what happened on the air on comedy central far more offensive than any of the jokes in soon to be daily show host trevor noah's twitter feed? is there a different set of rules for what is said on twitter as opposed to in a room full of people? joining me is britney and comedian todd barry.
his latest comedy special is the crowd work tour. you do a lot of stand up in front of people and have a twitter following. what do you make of this attack and concern and offense taken at trevor noah's jokes on twitter. >> comedians in general are not the most offended people, i find. so i mean we sort of like to shock each other. so you know, i don't usually make the leap between like -- i'm jewish but i don't think because he made that joke art the german car that he hates jewish people. and the joke is they would be more upset by the car than the fact that they were hit by a car. >> that the make of the car would somehow be worse than the death. >> yeah. i think that's the joke. >> and you don't find that funny or offensive. >> it doesn't offend me. >> britney, what do you think? >> i think that some of these
jokes are in poor taste but the real issue is that they're cheap jokes. he goes for cheap punch lines and the problem is the daily show is a whole other stratosphere. so john stewart has gotten our respect because he doesn't usually, anyway, go for cheap jokes or an easy punch line. he does really sophisticated cultural analysis. so when i saw what trevor noah was saying his digs at fat chicks. first i thought, you can't handle a fat chick. as a fat chick i can say it. but secondly, he has to build our trust and i don't think he has it just yet. that the level of sophistication that is required to step into john stewart's shoes. the old jokes that didn't land as he said, the question is whether that is how he usually constructs his comedy. >> part of the point here is policing of language can be positive when it helps people rethink the words and culture that can hold people down. but comedy is special and different and satire is
important. jerry seinfeld was talking about this in a potential oversensitivity. take a listen to this. >> you're not worried that we're becoming this very gentle respectful culture that people won't be funny anymore. >> i'm worried that every time i see a comedian apologize, just to end it, just because you took what i said seriously doesn't mean i now meant it. it doesn't mean you get to decide that you're in my head and know my intent. if i'm saying something and i'm joking, i'm joking. >> does that defense work and do you worry that if comedian versus to apologize for everything it cuts into the work you're trying to do. >> yeah, because i don't think the apology is sincere. if you're called out and you're like i'm going to do my little apology it's questionable whether you really mean it. but also i have a different set of rules for a comedian than someone who would have come up to me at a bar that i don't know and tell me a horrible racist joke. >> what do you mean? >> oh, a follow up question.
i was proud of my little answer i gave you. just i feel like if it's in the context of this is a comedian, then i let more slide than if it's just a stranger who walks up to me and makes a comment. i would be more likely to than they mean it than would a comedian. >> britney mentions the stach stature of the daily show. they had martha stewart telling jokes we couldn't tell on the show. >> if you don't like hah you shouldn't be watching a roast. that's the idea of a roast is you really push. >> let me play some chris rock because he makes a joke about bullying but i think if you look at some of the terrible bullying that goes on you could say why would you take the side of bullies but he's so clearly joking i don't think you can read it as pro bullying. take a listen. >> i'm working on a bit about bullying. everybody is trying to get rid of bullying.
some of these kids need this. most of them need it. who is going to invent the fuel that gets us off of fossil fuel? who is going to do these things? some guy that was bullied. that's who is going to do it. >> is that funny enough to get by or should people be offended by that. >> no, we shouldn't be offended by it. we have to give comedy a wide birth. chris rock is one of my favorite comedians. he does such important social commentary and we're in a moment where we're seeing how we are as a nation about race. we have starbucks trying to talk about race. we have everybody thinking they can deal with social issues. so i don't have a problem with comedians having a wider birth but with trevor noah the point is that the jokes weren't funny and he went for cheap punch lines so the question is what do we get to evaluate comedians on. >> i can tell you not being funny is the worst sin of all. thank you. that's hour show for this evening. the rachel maddow show starts now.
>> good evening. ten years ago, exactly ten years ago the entire country was absolutely rivoted to a story that at the core was very intensely private and personal story even though the entire country was paying attention to it. there's a time magazine poll at this time, again this is exactly enyears ago, late march, 2005 and in hah time magazine poll 76% of the country said they were either very closely or some what closely following this specific story. this specific case of this woman in florida. this woman. at age 26. she collapsed under medically murky circumstances and she fell into a coma and never came out of it. she is totally nonresponsive for years in a persistent vegetative state and she was in that state for a decade.